Godson Et All, Where Are The Contradictions In The Qur'aan?

GODSON has claimed that the Qur'aan contains a number of contradictions that makes it unfit to be called a Revealed Book, adn we have said that is a lie. He has asked us to open a thread to trash that out, now we do. So O GODSON bring those contradictions.

@Mavenbox: Quran has nothing to do with Bible, so your Biblical-evidence is actually irrelevant. Bini people have Oba, Iyasere, Ojumu, etc that Owo people in Ondo state have king and chieftancies of same titles. Is one set/group depending on another? No. Exactly the same thing with Quran and "Bible".

David of the Bible was a killer, adulterer, etc. This is different from Prophet King David of Quran. I use this to illustrate their incongruencies!

now we see that what follows as it came from Aisha, supposedly, is more of an opinion, and can never be ahadith, based on the description of ahadith. now then, you must reconcile the fact which i say is a fibbled fallacy as to her being 6 or 9, but prepuberty at time of marriage, as an ahadith, if you know when she was born, with concrete proof; bench mark, her father and family being muslim, in the first year. if she was born before this acceptance of islam, i say yes, and the statement ascribed to her is not ahadith, i say yes, again, then, your argument is completely wrong.

by the way, age of maturity for jews is 13, ready or not. what is it, for christian? i bet you dont know it!

I say it is the Hotelier (the yoruba man, your father son of god godson2009) who pays the school fees, because he is the one who delegated power to the mamager, etc. the monies came from your father's account.

same with Allag Who empowered Angel to discharge his duty of taking soul, or do you think that the Angel could have done it, without Allah? afterall, Jesus of the Bible said "of my own power, i can do nothing". and thats the truth with angels, too, since Jibril said in Quran, as Allah permitted him with instruction to say " and we the Angels do not come down except by permission of Allah!"

for those with the eye of reasoning open, they will will see that each section is perfectly fit with the others. It is similar to when we say Muhammad (AS) is a warner, but also a bringer of good news, also a mercy to all who accept his guidance, him being a messenger prophet of his Lord.

It is further similar to when we say God is Alive, always, meaning tat He never once die. This makes Him different from all those who dies, will die, once, twice, thrice, or as many times a coward may die!

the last contradiction for today,however i have plenty more like i promised in the first page f this thread,

what exactly is the universal age for marriage in the quran?further contradictions,

in the quranic verse below, And try orphans (as regards their intelligence) until they reach the age of marriage; if then you find sound judgement in them, release their property to them, but consume it not wastefully, and hastily fearing that they should grow up, and whoever amongst guardians is rich, he should take no wages, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable (according to his work). And when you release their property to them, take witness in their presence; and Allah is All Sufficient in taking account. S. 4:6

the quran agrees there is a certain age of marriage,presumably an age where the girl has reachd puberty,which abulbanaat,olabowale and co will agre with me yes?

now let us see where islamic scholars have fixed an age, (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn)

Try, test, well the orphans, before reaching maturity with regard [the duties of] religion and [before] they can [legally] manage their own affairs, until they reach the age of marrying, that is, until they have become eligible for it through puberty or [legal] age, which, according to al-Shāfi‘ī, is the completion of fifteen years; then, if you perceive in them maturity, that is, right [judgement] in matters of religion and their property, deliver their property to them; consume it not, O guardians, wastefully, without due merit, and in haste, that is, hastening to expend it, fearing, lest they should grow up, and become mature, at which time you will be obliged to hand it over to them. If any man, who is a guardian, is rich, let him be abstinent, that is, let him abstain from the orphan’s property and refrain from consuming it; if he is poor, let him consume, of it, honourably, that is, in line with the wage for his work. And when you deliver to them, the orphans, their property, take witnesses over them, that they have received it and that you are absolved [of the obligation], so that if any dispute occurs, you are able to refer to a clear proof: this is a command [intended] for guidance. God suffices as a reckoner, as a guardian of His creatures’ deeds and as a reckoner of these [deeds] (the bā’ [in bi’Llāhi] is extra).

another great islamic scholar, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

(The pen does not record the deeds of three persons: the child until the age of puberty, the sleeping person until waking up, and the senile until sane.) Or, the age of fifteen is considered the age of adolescence. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "I was presented in front of the Prophet on the eve of the battle of Uhud, while I was fourteen years of age, and he did not allow me to take part in that battle. But I was presented in front of him on the eve of the battle of Al-Khandaq (The Trench) when I was fifteen years old, and he allowed me (to join that battle).'' `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz commented when this Hadith reached him, "This is the difference between a child and an adult.'' There is a difference of opinion over whether pubic hair is considered a sign of adulthood, and the correct opinion is that it is. The Sunnah supports this view, according to a Hadith collected by Imam Ahmad from `Atiyah Al-Qurazi who said, We were presented to the Prophet on the day of Qurizah, whoever had pubic hair was killed, whoever did not was left free to go, I was one of those who did not, so I was left free.'' The Four Sunan compilers also recorded similar to it. At-Tirmidhi said, "Hasan Sahih.'' Allah's statement,

from the assertions of these scholars,we can see here the age of puberty specifically at 15 yeares old,while the quran specifically places the age wfor marriage at "puberty"

again mohammad and the book of confusion contradicts themselves by marrying a 6 years old girl who is clearly not reached the age of puberty,

Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

i also have hadiths proving aisha had not reached the age of puberty if anyone needs them

The Quran, by way of rebuking the Christians and idolaters, claims that none of those individuals that they called upon and worshiped could intercede, create, give life, or cause to die,

"Is He then Who creates like him who does not create? Do you not then mind? … And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created; Dead (are they), not living, and they know not when they shall be raised. S. 16:17, 20-21 Shakir"

"And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life. S. 25:3 Shakir"

the quran also specifically admonishes people from calling on angels, ,.

"And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)?" S. 3:80 Pickthall

Cry unto those (saints and angels) whom ye assume (to be gods) beside Him, yet they have no power to rid you of misfortune nor to change. Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and they fear His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned. S. 17:56-57 Pickthall

yet the quran turns around to ascribe the power of death to the same angels in a swift about face,

Verily, those whom the angels cause to die while they are wronging their own souls, the angels will say to them: ‘What were you after?’ They will say: ‘We were treated as weak in the land.’ The angels will say, ‘Was not Allah's earth spacious enough so that you could have emigrated therein?’ It is these whose abode shall be Hell, and an evil destination it is; 4:97

Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE while they are unjust to themselves. Then would they offer submission: We used not to do any evil. Aye! surely Allah knows what you did. … Those whom the angels CAUSE TO DIE in a good state, saying: Peace be on you: enter the garden for what you did. S. 16:28, 32

the same quran even further contradicts itself,by ascribing the certain owers of creation to the same angels,

'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (committing an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saving: When forty nights pass after the Fluid gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6393)

nezan, what you fail to realize is that science and history are progressive feilds. Wat we know to be true today can be mdiofied or even disproved tomorow. Even the almighty theories of einstein are continually being modified in the light of new findings.

As per the issue of mud bricks and crucifixion, we can only know as much as history preserves for us. It is obvious that historians and scientists alike keep pushing back the dates of events like first coins, first baked bricks, first wheel, 'first' humans etc. I saw a documentry about what appears to be a battey cell found discovered among solomons ruins. What was solomon doing with a battery? Historians are beginning to understand that what we are today is not the peak of human civilization. There is strong evidence to suggest that some ancient civilization were more kwoledgabe than us and probably surpassed our technological acheivments.

Scientist used to see animal as mindless robots. We now know ants 'talk' in the most complex of ways and live in extremely organized and complex societies. Because Nezan cannot understand them does not mean David couldnt.

Notwithstanding the changing faces of history and science, there are some axiomatic fact that no amount of research or time can change. The amazing thing is that the quran agrees 100% with these. There is lot of history that had the quran as the only source. Xtian sholar used to call them fairytales until new finding confirmed them as facts. For example

the people of Iram

the dwellers of the cave

Haman an accomplice of pharoah

preservation of pharaoh body

that early egyptian ruler were called kings and not pharoah.

The list is endless

science

human embrayology

movement of celestial objects in orbiits

that male gamete determines a baby's sex

creation of the universe from a single unit

worker bees are female

death of stars- supernova

space travel

etc

the miraculous thing is that the quran does not repeat the axiomatic blunders contained in the bible, like

plants created before the sun

tower of babel etc

nezan admited that errors in the bible are being corrected by science and history. This is not the case with the quran. The quran does not need science to endorse, the reverse is the case

nezan if you ask me how muhammed split the moon. I will tell you the same way moses split the red sea and jesus walked on water

nezan, what you fail to realize is that science and history are progressive feilds. Wat we know to be true today can be mofied or even disproved tomorow. Even the almighty theories of einstein are continually being modified in the light of new findings.

As per the issue of mud bricks and crucifixion. It is obvious that historians and scientists alike keep pushing back the dates

Godson really that was a horrible attempt at finding contradictions. I actually read this thread with gleam and finally expecting a Christian to point out a clear cut mistake and contradiction only to find this fool not tell the difference between abrogation(wasnt the old tastament done awaya with too) and contradiction or refer to verses that are soo clear in nature that it makes me wonder how he can misconstrue them. Perhaps it of no fault because you lack a firm grip in understanding of Arabic, islamic history, and the very art of exegisis.

Here are some reasons why it is difficult to point to internal contradictions in the Quran

1. The quranic verses generally are repetitive and clear

2. The message given is consistent in moral and meaning across the Meccan and Medina period.

3. The Quran rarely mentions explicit, non-essential dates and names of people or locations that seems to filtered all over the bible; useless information. So it is hard to find explicit mistakes.

4. Muslim over the centuries with the science of Hadith, the science of reliability not found in biblical scholarship points to when a verse was revealed and clears up the context of the issue

5. The science of interpreting the quran or tafsir makes it impossible to find an internal consistency.

Though finding an error in the bible or pointing to mathamatical errors or explicit dates contraditions can be easily pointed to in the bible due to scribal mistakes,

nezan what u fail to realize is the fact that science and history are progressive feilds. What is thought to be true today can be disproved or modified tommorow. Even the almigthy theories of einstein are currently being reviwed in light of new findings

as per the mud bricks and cruxifixition, we only know as much as history preseves for us, Events like appearnce of first coins, first baked bricks, first wheels or even 'first' humans are been continouly pushed backwards as new findings surface. I saw a documentry about discovery of what appears to be a battery cell among solomons ruins. What was solomon doing with a bathery? A device we know was 'recently' invented. It is becoming more and more obvious to historians that we see today is not the height of human civiliation. There is strong evidence that some ancient civilizations had more knowledge than us and might have even surpassed our technological acheivments.

Scientists used to think animals are mindless robots. But now we know that ants 'talk' in the most complex of ways. That whales actually talk and show complex behaviours and possibly cultures that rival that of man

not withstanding the ever changing face of science and history, there are however some axiomatic facts that no amount of research or time can change. It is amazing that the quran agrees 100% wih these. There is plenty of history that has quran as the only source. These were gnerally regarded as fairytales by xtian scholars until findings confirmed them. For example

the people of Iram

Haman, an accomplice of pharoah

preservation of pharaoh body

that early egyptian rulers were called kings and not pharoah

etc

science

human embrayology

that the universe was created from a single unit

that worker bees are female

water cycle

that male gamete determines babys sex

anatomy of ocean waves

death of stars- supernova

space travel

the list is endless

it is quite miraculous that the quran does not repeat the axiomatic blunders recorded in the bible, liike

plants created before sun

tower of babel. etc

nezan, you admitted that the bible is subject to correction by science and history. This is not the case with the quran. The quran does not need science or history to endorse it, the reverse is the case

nezan, if u ask me how muhammed split the moon. I will tell you same way moses split the red sea and jesus walked on water

@Nezan: this man enjoy saying molest, and terrorism too often, even when better and adequately appropriate words are available! stop saying shalom, a clearly jewish word, a people who dont care ragtag for your nigerian person! you are neither a jew, by blood or by religion, unlike me who can clearly fit the arab motif, if only in religion. remember that Quran is revealed in pure and clear arabic? and of course, you dont know what language (lol) your new testament is revealed.

at least the moderator is an equal opportunity thread deletor, so stop complaining, because i am and if you didnt call my attention to it, i would never have noticed anything removed! typical Kiriyo (thats what the yoruba muslims calle kristieni), stop complaining about everything, man.

You will notice that your mods edited this thread, cleverly removing my posts and olabowale's posts in argument, hence bastardizing the thread. I dont think I will continue an argument in which my posts will be so violently Molested via cyber-terrorism. I am not interested in arguing with people who are too scared to face up to the truth.

He was drowned verse 92 of Soorah 10 does not say he was not drowned. No Muslim has ever understood that verse that way, even the owners of the Language, so you ask them to teach you the language, do not teach then their language.

“So This Day we shall deliver Your (dead) body (out from the sea) that You may be a sign to those who come after You! and Verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs , revelations, etc.).”92.

If he was saved from drowning, this would not have been hidden from the Muslims.

In the Tafseer, the interpretation of that was that Allaah caused the corpse of Pharaoh to come afloat the sea so that the Jews would actually see that he had died.

Your sources do not understand Arabic.

Sorry.

‘Contradiction No. 19:’

Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians –

whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right –

shall have nothing to fear or regret.

-- Sura 5:69

But just three verses further in the text it says

The verse and this verse:

‘Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe In Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall They grieve.’ [Q2: 62]

All indicate that whoever among those people, as collections of people, believe in Allaah, the Last Day and work righteousness will have the mentioned rewards.

The verse is rather an invitation to the way of Allaah.

Look at the people mentioned:

Those who believe – the Muslims

Those who follow the Jewish scriptures – the Jews

The Christians

The Sabians (you will say these are the Serbs; remember your Saamiri-Samaritan principle!)

And ‘any who believe,’ this can be just anybody even an unbeliever.

That when those believe in Allaah, not in Jesus as son of God, the Last day and work righteousness, they will have the reward mentioned.

Thus it is glaring that those people were mentioned as examples. The list can go on:

Those who believe, the Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, anybody, if they believe in oneness of Allaah (in Islâm) and the Last Day, and they work righteousness,

I hope it is clear to you O Nezan.

Let me give you a homework, find out the meaning of these verses:

“Verily, You will find the strongest among men In enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikûn, and You will find the nearest In love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." that is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.

And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad), You see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the Truth they have recognised. They say: "Our Lord! we believe; so write us down among the witnesses.

"And why should we not believe In Allâh and In that which has come to us of the Truth (Islâmic Monotheism)? and we wish that Our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people (Prophet Muhammad and his Companions)."

So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. such is the reward of good­doers.” [Maaidah: 82-85].

The Qur’aan is a Wonderful Book though you may not understand. Do you know it is the only religious book that is closely studied by its adherents?

And it is the most widely memorized religious book in the world. Please how many Christians have memorized the whole Bible?

“Therefore, either the Qur'an contradicts itself, or it shows itself very ignorant of historical Christianity.”

You are the one who is confused or made to be confused.

Sorry.

“Contradiction No. 20:”

Your quote:

“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, -

flog them each with a hundred stripes.

-- Sura 24:2

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness,

take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;

and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,

or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. “

I say:

If you have brought the verse in their order of revelation then your doubt will be removed, but you (or your superiors) have a motive for bringing the way you have done.

So I will help you make it in the correct order:

‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness,

take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;

and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,

or Allah ordain for them some (other) way ‘

That was the initial revelation when the Muslims were just settling down in Madeenah.

And when they had settled down, Allaah ordained ‘some other way:’

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, -

flog them each with a hundred stripes.

So there is no contradiction, o Nezan.

As for this verse:

“If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.

If they repent and amend, leave them alone;

for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. “

-- Sura 4:15-16

It remains as it is.

But you should have seen this clause now, ‘punish them both’

So those guilty of homosexuality will be punished according to the discretion of the Prophet, this is what is called Ta’zir in the Shariah.

And very much later, the prophet decreed that the homosexuals be killed:

‘Whomever you find doing the act of people of Lut, kill the subject and the object.’

So in the Shariah, the eventual punishment for homosexuality is killing.

Sorry Nezan, you made a mistake again.

Then you said: “All this is further complicated by the fact that in the Sharia the actual punishment for adultery is stoning on the basis of the Sunna of Muhammad and various hadiths, ”

What a wicked conclusion from you Nezan, do you mean the Shariah does not demarcate it?

For unmarried adulterers it is hundred stripes and for a married person, stoning to death, as it is in the Torah!

And you still said:

“, and there are even traditions that the verse of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an.”

Yes it was abrogated in recitation but retained in ruling according to the Infinite Wisdom of your Creator, Allaah.

He the Only Lord said:

“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do we abrogate or Cause to be forgotten, we bring a better one or similar to it. know You not that Allâh is Able to do All things?” [Q2: 106].

Remember Nezan, this is Shariah and it has its experts studying it day and night in the places of learning (including the mosques). So you or your superiors are far from knowing it unless you let us teach you.

It is our religion, it is our Faith.

(I have prepared this from my busiest time, may Allaah accept it from me as worship. O Allaah it is because of You Alone I have done this, make it so for me.)

nezan let me show you something; when i read anything of the bible, i wrap my heart around it. i wait as long as possible, thinking about it and when its fully digested looking at from the reality of it, then i respond to it. until then i dont react to it, having no opinion on it.

this is why you do no see me going against any biblical verse that says God is One, unique and unlike any of His creations. that is why i do not go against any verse saying that jesus ia a prophet, messenger of Israelites, performing miracles, preaching Onenes of his Lord God. that is why you dont see me saying anything indicating jesus to be human. all of these are reality; the only reason i give opinions about all the impossibilities like God being more than one, a part dying, a part being human, another being ghost, etc.

you should use this strategy to react to Quranic verses! things that are human are just human; you cant expect a person to be abused and not reach a saturation, whereby he/she responds!

I had thought you would accuse me of running away having not seen my hands for some days now, I know you would not say that because you once made that blunder on my that other thread and when I hit you back. Please give me some days and I shall show your folly as regard the latest round of 'contradictions' in the Qur'aan which you have gone and brought, ku se, I am very much engaged now but i shall find time to answer you adequately. No respite for you, Nezan.

take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;

and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,

or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.

If they repent and amend, leave them alone;

for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

-- Sura 4:15-16

Yusuf Ali says "men", other translations just say "two". It is the masculine dual form of the word. This "could" also mean a man and a woman, but it might be more natural as reading this as a rule how to deal with homosexual acts, since verse 15 deals only with women, and so the attention turns to men in verse 16.

If 4:16 is about male homosexual acts, then interestingly, the homosexual men are to be left alone when they repent of their deed, while adulterers are to be punished in any case. This alone is not a contradiction, but certainly strange. Maybe because in an homosexual act no other man's right over a woman is violated? While in adultery with the wife of another man the "property" or right of an undefiled wife of this man is violated?

A homosexual act would violate only the wife of this other man but the violation of a woman is not as severe?

Nevertheless, there is the contradiction whether for a female adulteress the is punishment one hundred stripes [Sura 24:2] or confinement in the house until death [4:15].

If 4:16 does not speak only about homosexual acts but also about adultery of man and woman, then another contradictory element is added: If they repent they can get off the hook without punishment? Who will not repent with the prospect of a hundred stripes waiting for them?

Apart from the question whether the punishment should be as in 24:2 or 4:15, how come the man and woman are treated equal in 24:2, but seemingly different in 4:15?

All this is further complicated by the fact that in the Sharia the actual punishment for adultery is stoning on the basis of the Sunna of Muhammad and various hadiths and there are even traditions that the verse of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an.

So, are Christians believers or unbelievers? Are they allowed to remain as Christians (knowing they worship Christ) as long as they do what is right, or are they condemned outright for their faith? Do we have to worry or not to worry according to the Qur'an?

Sometimes I even wonder if single Suras were even completely authored by the same person.

Now, the obvious answer that a Muslim would give is that the "true" Christians do not worship Jesus as God. Hence there is no contradiction. But the first verse does not specify that. It only talks about the belief in the existence of God and in the (Judgment of the) Last Day and doing right. Any serious Christian will fall in this category.

Muslims try to save the Qur'an by claiming that any Trinitarian is not a true Christian and hence verse 72 does not apply to them. But the problem is only shifted. Either the contradiction is as above, or, with the shift, the contradiction is with reality. It is historical fact that Christianity has always considered Jesus to be the LORD, to be of the same nature of God.

Therefore, either the Qur'an contradicts itself, or it shows itself very ignorant of historical Christianity.

In Sura 10:92, Allah speaks to Pharaoh who ferociously chased the Children of Israel, "But this day We save you in your body, that you may be a portent for those after you." Although this verse makes it clear that Allah saved Pharaoh from drowning, Suras 28:40, 17:103, and 43:55 contradict this, stating that Pharaoh was drowned: "Therefore We seized him and his hosts and abandoned them unto the sea , But We drowned him and those with him, all together , And [We] drowned them, everyone."

When the Qur'an says "But this day We save you in your body, , " what exactly does this mean? Today Muslims want us to believe that this means "We will preserve your body for posterity", but why doesn't then the Arabic say "We will save your body" (but not your life)? Why does it use the preposition "in" (Arabic: bi) when it says "save you IN your body (nunajjeeka BI-badanika)"? The "you" is distinguished from "your body" and what is saved is not "the body" but the "you". The text clearly refers to the saving of the life of Pharaoh [you in your body, i.e. you will stay alive in this body] not "you will die but your body will be preserved for those after you."

you yourself have seen it. Your points are to shallow to be contended with, time is precious, nobody has a time to waste. so if you have other 'contradictions' bring them, otherwise face your work in your office or you go to sleep.

Lest I forget the 50,000 stuff, so that Nezan will not accuse us again of dodging some things.

Yes Q32: 5 says:

“He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world's time).”

And Q70: 4: says:

“The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years”

So the Nezans of this world think both of them contradict, if they have pondered well, they will see that they did not contradict.

The actions being referred to in each is different:

The first one is arrangement of affairs from heavens.

The second one is movement of the angels and the Ruh.

The first one if humans were to count it will take place in their own 1000 years and the second, in their 50,000 years. But each of the action takes place in a Day with Allaah.

To put it more practically: That A should come down from Allaah to earth will cost a Day with Allaah which will have been our 1000 years, and for B to come down it will cost a Day with Allaah and that will be equall to our 50,000. If A and B were to come down from Allaah in a Day that will be our 1000 + 50,000, let Nezan complete the sum if he still knows Arithmetic. [Laugh].

Nezan said: “I was the one trying to educate abulbanaat that crucifixion was not used in ancient egypt at the time of Moses.”

I say if you are basing that on your historical ‘facts’ then I say we will not accept it from you because history is subjective and it is often based on human conjectures which are prone to error.

He said: “The fact is that the koran goofed when it said that the Egyptians worshipped many gods, and in another breathe, said that pharoah was the god of the Egyptians.”

I say there is no single verse in the Qur’aan except that its experts have explained it in the light of Sunnah and what has been handed down from the Pious Predecessors.

The verses that you are alluding to are reports by Allaah from what those people say. I hope you will understand. Pharaoh told his people he was their only lord but the people later said: ‘Stop Musa unless he will leave you and your gods.’ What the people inferred from that was that Pharaoh had paraphernalia of fetish that qualified him and those things as gods. Will you now understand O Nezan. Remember Allaah was reporting their conversations. It would have been a contradiction if Allaah had said: ‘Indeed Pharaoh was the god of the Egyptians’ and later said: ‘There are many gods in Egypt.’ Will you now understand?

He said: “Stop derailing the OP, must you always resort to abuse when you are cornered?”

I say while you are sharper in that regards than I am.

He said: “When the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, God caused the Egyptians to give the Israelites gifts of gold, silver, etc, which were later used to make the calf”

I say if this is from the Bible then it is very illogical as Sir Olabowale had said, and that confirms our fear about the Bible – that it is a mix-up of what is from God and humans.

He said: “So what are we to believe now? Yusuf Alli said the name mean watchman. abulbanaat said the name means somebody from Iraq olabowale said its the name of a person.”

Then you have told a lie against me read what I wrote:

“In the Arabic knowledge of ‘Ism Nasab’ (generic name), it will rather be right to say the translation will be a person from Saamarah (in the present day Iraaq) which has nothing to do with Samarita, Saamarah is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it).”

And let me expatiate: What that means is that Saamarah is a coinage of a recent past in Iraaq to refer to a city which is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it). So it can’t be Saamarah of the Qur’aan, so Saamiriyy is a person of a tribe which we don’t know and it is of no significance that we know it.

I even made that clear when I wrote:

“So the person being referred to is another person of another town which we don’t know (and it does not affect us as Muslims in any way if we don’t know it).”

So I hope you can see your folly O Nezan.

He said: “Thank you for backing my argument. Your koran erroneosly argued that Egyptians used 'fired bricks' against 'mud bricks', and abulbanaat was trying to let me believe that 'cut stone' means 'fired bricks'. So much for islam, 'boko haram'!”

I say if you still base that on historical ‘facts,’ Allaah knows more than the historians, to hell with them.

He said: “but your koran made it to appear as if it is Egypt.”

So now it is ‘appear’ but you did say Qur’aan says it was Egypt that was promised the Children of Israel. And I challenged you to produce the Aayah. Now that you cannot produces the Aayah, remember what I said you would be a LIAR, so you are. Can you also bring the verse (s) that make (s) it seems to be Egypt, so that you will receive a feather to your lying business.

He said: “Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ”

This verse (and other verses that would be mentioned later) only explains what is applicable to the Unclad eyes, just as Sir Olabowale as said. And Zul-Qar’nain getting to the setting place of the sun does not indicate that the Qur’aan implies that the earth is flat. The action only refers to the fact that Zul-Qurnain travelled far – Far East and Far West such that he got to a place that would seem to him that the sun was setting (as you see it if you around a river when the sun is to set or rise).

Till today we still say the sun sets and rises because that is what is observable to the eyes. And nobody says whoever says that is ignorant of the science, one because science itself is not constant (they now say the sun moves on its own axis; and a group of scientists in Germany had removed Pluto from family of the planets). So Science is not an embodiment of truth.

He said: “Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great.”

I say: That was the opinion of later English commentators of the Qur’aan (like Yuusuf Alli), it is never the mainstream thought in Islam, so that was a conjecture from them.

“However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.”

I say: The explanation of that is like what I said over Zul-Qar’nain’s travels above; that is what is observable to the eyes. Indeed the sky has been adorned with the stars irrespective of where they may be (and remember we say Science is not constant).

“In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or four legs taken together.”

I say: So you want the Qur’aan to mention Arachinds, Molluscs, Amoeba, etc, Haba, this is a book directly talking to the Arabs, reminding them of what they see in their daily lives.

Anyway if the Qur’aan does not mention your favourite ‘six-legged insects’ it has however said:

“And (He has created) horses, mules and donkeys, for you to ride and as an adornment. And He creates (other) things of which you have no knowledge.” [Q16: 8]

What the verse implies that there things you may not know now but He also created them.

He said: “Ants Cannot Talk”

You think so, even Qur’aan says hands and legs will talk on the Day of Resurrection. That is simply spiritual, so the talking of the ants to Solomon too was spiritual, no scientific effort can unravel it just as the science has failed to unravel existence of God.

So take it Nezan, hands and legs will talk. Imagine if your hands and legs testify against you on the Day of Resurrection O Nezan. See this:

“This Day, We shall seal up their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their legs will bear witness to what they used to earn.” [Yaasin: 65]

Even the Qur’aan says the creatures sing the praise of Allaah, even mountains! Science may not be able to explain that because there are many things that are beyond the realm of science, and such things abound in the Qur’aan (this is why we don’t believe in the Qur’aan because of its scientific content but because it is a Revelation from the Lord of the worlds).

He said: “Thinking located in the bosoms?”

“I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."

I say what you say here has exonerated the Qur’aan of what you have been saying about it viz. Its mentioning that the stars adorn the sky, that Zul-Qurnain got to where the sun rises and sets. Simply all those are based on people perception of those phenomena, that does not mean Allaah did not know the reality but communicated to people in a way that they will understand, and of course take lessons. If Allaah had wished, He would have told us of what goes on in the galaxies but that might not have brought the desired result.

He said: “since YHWH and Allah are two different beigns, one been an idol, and the other God Almighty.”

I say: I have always like this side of my discussions with the Christians saying Allaah is an idol being worshipped by the Arabs before Muhammad because Muhammad’s father was Abdullaah (Abdu Allaah). What a reasoning! Since you have brought this, I will challenge you again, O Nezan, to produce your evidence, even your historical ‘facts’ that say the Arabs did (and do not) believe in a Supreme Being.

Again if you fail to then you are a LIAR.

But if Allaah is the Supreme Being, O Nezan, don’t you think you are in for trouble. I pity you O.

He said: “Never was it proved scientifically and historically that the moon was ever split into two.”

I say: Well that was one of the miracles of Muhammad (we Muslims do not bank on the miracles of the Prophet to prove the authenticity of Islam). Since it has been proved authentically that he performed that miracle (Qur’aan even attests to it [Suurah Qamar v. 1]), we believe it, so we don’t need any scientific proof for that the same way we don’t need scientific proofs for Jesus’ miracles.

He said: “I have observed that abulbanaat has now taken the sidelines”

I say: Sidelines ke, never. It is only Muhsin that is trying to prevent me, also I am pretty busy. But this is a religious duty, so that we will establish the proof of Islâm against you O Nezan.

Yes I am pretty busy. However I will try to answer some of Nezan's full-blown ignorance (as an addition to what Sir Olabowale has been telling him), I had thought he had gone into a lull. Now that he is back, we welcome him. and I think Muhsin will pardon me this time around if I forcefully reply Nezan, he can see himself. Yes i am busy and I was the one that threw the challenge so I must be around. Therefore Nezan wait for my reply, I promise to make it snappy.

i wonder if nezan even try to reflect on anything at all? considering that Angels come to earth, just like that, is distance not relative, based on your knowledge and that of the All-Knower? and long time before any space exploration, Quran talks about it in Surah Rahman, so I wonder if it knows the actual distance and positions of things called celestral?!

I am amased at your thought process and i am very confident that you are the winner in this argument! at least you are not changing or moving a bit, with your heels already dug in the sand!

abulbanaat may be busy with other aspects of his life, can you imagine his not leaving all of those to attend to nezan's?

The above is Arberry's translation. Yusuf Ali translates "heart" instead of "bosoms," but whether heart or bosom, the question would be the same.

This wouldn't even be worth mentioning as a "problem" if Muslims were not stressing so much the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an. The Semitic people thought the location of "thinking" to be in the chest/heart area [many Bible verses show the same view]. I can easily accept it for both Bible and Qur'an that these verses do not make any scientific claims nor do they give medical descriptions of the seat of thinking, but that they just employ the commonly used expressions to communicate the truth the author wants to express here, namely that God knows our deepest secrets and thoughts. To this day we say (in English) that God knows our "heart" and we don't mean the muscle in our physical body but our motives and desires. And we speak that way due to tradition even though we know those are to be located in the brain if one can give it a location at all.

I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."

But it is one passage which shows that the Qur'an uses the normal language to communicate, and is indeed very unscientific by doing so. I believe that the Qur'an is equally unscientific in many other verses where Muslims try to extract scientific miracles and which are just lending themselves in their vageness better to be twisted into harmony with some modern science theories even though nothing like that was intended in the text.

But if Muslims insist in a general scientific accuracy of the Qur'an and want to make scientific accuracy of the Qur'an a proof for its divine inspiration, then the above verses are indeed a clear mistake and Muslims who want to make a case for the Qur'an on the basis of scientific accuracy will have to deal with it.

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."

-- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19

But then there are these Amazing Facts About Ants that in contradiction to the Qur'an, ants do communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds. Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not produce any.

Additionally, to imagine that ants communicate such sophisticated information as the Qur'an claims seems rather to belong into the land of fairy tales than science (e.g. an ant being able to distinguish between Solomon and a soldier).

Even though basically all communication between ants is through chemical signals, there are, however, a few subspecies of ants which do use some sound communication. But of what kind and complexity is it?

The use of vibrational signals is weakly developed in ants in comparison with communication by pheromones. , Two forms of sound production have been identified., body rapping against the substratum and stridulation, the latter employing files and scrapers clearly evolved for a communicative purpose. , [p. 255]

It has long been known, thanks to the experiments of , that ants are nearly deaf to airborne vibrations but extremely sensitive to vibrations carried through the substratum , [p. 257]

No evidence exists to rank the chirps of stidulation as anything more than simple unitary signals. In other words, ants do not "talk" by modulating sound through time. , sounds , do not appear to vary within species or within the repertory of one worker ant through time. , stridulation in ants produces a monotonous series of chirps with limited meaning. [p. 257]

The signaling pattern is independent of the triggering stimulus. That is, the ants do not modify the drumming to identify the category of danger to the nest. [p. 256]

Chapter 7, pages 227-297 speak about communication. Page 228 gives a table of different signals in communication between ants. Of the 17 "messages" listed 14 are chemical, 2 are tactile, 1 is "chemical or tactile". In all the intensive studies of ants, "speech" (modulated sound of complex meaning) has never been observed.

When a live ant is marked with the chemical [one that develops in dead ants], i.e. sending the message that this ant is dead, the struggling ant is nevertheless taken by the others and carried out to the rubbish dump. Chemicals take the precedence over anything else. Surely no intelligent speech communication as claimed in this Qur'an passage. Action is blind reaction to the chemical message [pheromones]. (See From Gaia to selfish genes : selected writings in the life sciences, edited by Connie Barlow, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1991, 273 p, the chapter "From ants to anthropology" by E. O. Wilson, page 153-154.)

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made EVERY living thing of water? Will they not then believe? 21:30 Pickthall

However, this related verse contains an additional problematic statement.

Allah has created EVERY moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily! Allah is Able to do all things. S. 24:45 Al-Hilali & Khan

And Allah has created from water EVERY living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things. S. 24:45 Shakir

Aren't there a lot of creatures missing in the "divine categorization" of living creatures that is given in S. 24:45? The author starts with making a comprehensive, all-inclusive statement. He speaks about "every living creature". First he refers to their common origin, i.e. that all of them were created from water, and then he categorizes them according to what distinguishes them, their characteristic property. He gives three categories in which those creatures exist:

However, as intuitive as these three categories may appear at first sight, the author of S. 24:45 forgot a huge number of species when he made this statement. Even the Qur'an mentions several creatures that are not covered by this categorization: the gnat (2:26), the bee (16:68), the fly (22:73), and moths (101:4) which are all insects and walk on six legs, the spider (29:41) that walks on eight legs, and all kinds of fish (5:96, 18:61, 37:142) which have no legs and are not walking (or creeping) at all.[1] Moreover, apart from those various creatures mentioned in the Qur'an, there are the octopus ("eight foot", actually, there are about 300 species of octopus) and other cephalopods, various crabs that have ten legs (1, 2), caterpillars, centipedes and millipedes, all of which are not mentioned in the Qur'an.

In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or four legs taken together.

And Pharaoh said: O chiefs! I know not that ye have a god other than me, so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake the mud; and set up for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; and lo! I deem him of the liars. [Sura 28:38]

This is a very interesting verse for several reasons.

This command of Pharaoh is a problem for the authenticity and accuracy of the Qur'an since at the time of Moses Egyptians didn't construct buildings out of burnt clay, i.e. this is a historical contradiction. See the dictionary entry on Bricks for more details.

The next question would be to ask, where this motive comes from. Interestingly, there is a well-known story which fits these details. In Genesis 11:3-4a we read:

They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches heaven, , "

The original story of Moses and Pharaoh as reported in the Torah, the book of Exodus, reports historically accurate of the Israelites being forced to make bricks with straw (which are then sun-dried). This story has no mentioning of a tower for Pharaoh to reach God.

It seems that the author of the Qur'an confused or for other reasons conflated these two stories from the Torah, the Exodus of Israel and the tower of Babel.

Insert Quote @Nezan: Crucifixion: A method of carrying out the death penalty which involved physical abuse of the victim, stripping him/her of all clothing, tying or nailing the arms and legs to a cross or stake, and abandoning the victim to die. The corpse was often partly eaten by scavengers. The body was generally denied a proper burial; it was tossed on a garbage heap. Crucifixion was widely used within the Roman Empire to execute either slaves or rebels.

No?. And before this; Abraham destroyed all the smaller gods, gods of his people by all means, but left the big god so that he can make fun of their foolishness, shocking them back to some good sense/common sense, which they fail to accept, because of arrogance. It is the same form of arrogance that you and the christians have when you make a common man a God along with his Creator, and equate His angel (Jibril) as god with Him, too.

Now, none of the gods of egypt can animated, alive like human, except the priests act on their figurine behaves. Hence Pharaoh in his arrogance, as I have said made himself also god, now more than a king so that he can suppress his people's ability to free themselves and emancipate themselves into the truth of Musa (AS). You cant deny the truth, by now.

In the Qur'an we find the following statements about the moon and the stars:

He Who created the seven heavens, one above the other ,

And We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps , (67:3,5)

And He completed them seven heavens in two days

and inspired in each heaven its command;

and We adorned the lower heaven with lamps,

and rendered it guarded, (41:12)

We have indeed adorned the lower heaven with the beauty of the stars. (37:6)

Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens

one above the other,

and made the moon a light in their midst,

and made the sun as a lamp? (71:15-16)

The above is Yusuf Ali's translation. Pickthall renders Sura 71:16 as

And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?

The Qur'an seems to teach that there are seven heavens, one above the other, whether it was imagined to be like storeys in a high building (flat layers) or like shells or the layers of an onion.

As a poetic way of expression this is acceptable, even though there are, scientifically speaking, no discernable stages in the universe that would allow us to differentiate between those various heavens.

However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.

But everyone knows today that the stars are much much further away from the earth than the moon. This is not a small difference, it is an issue of several magnitudes. The average distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400 km, while Proxima Centauri, the closest star to us outside of the solar system, is already about 4.3 light years = 40,682,300,000,000 km (40 trillion kilometers) away, or expressed differently, we need to multiply the distance of the moon by more than 100 million to reach even the nearest of all the stars.

First: It is scientifically proven that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring.

Second: This seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the West or in the East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets and in his second journey the place where it rises.

Furthermore: Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great. And so does the "Concise Dictionary of Islam." Looking at verses 98-101, this would make Alexander the Great a Muslim -- 1000 years before Muhammad. Yet that is for sure not true. The history does not relate that Alexander the Great had any other religion than the pagan Greeks he came from and ruled over. This is historically blatantly false.

[Quote]mohammed claimed to receive the koranic revelation, was dictating it to be written on leaves (of which a goat ate parts), hides etc, Jesus never claim to receive any injeel! He never dictated any injeel to be written down! what the koran erroneously tried to potray as the injeel was not written down by Jesus, neither did He commanded His disciples to write it down! the disciples were rather lead by the Holy Spirit to write down a recollection of the teachings, life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, contrary to the false claims of the koran.[/quote]When Jesus was reported to have preached the Gospel, was it already written down by the writers, then, while Jesus was still here, what was meant by "preach the Gospel" relative to Jesus preaching among his people? I thought Jesus left before they wrote it down, so how did he preach what was not revealed to him, but was a collection of his preaching, life works, etc by people left behind?

[Quote]« #83 on: Today at 10:29:24 AM »

Quote

where did the children of Israel, a mere race of slaves got the Gold (a simple example of heritage of Free slave owners' egyptians) which tey used to make the Golden calf? They found it on the way in the wilderness or took it from the Egyptians, since slaves dont really acquire anything, and we cant make the Israelites an exception in this old age historical rue of thimb of master /slave wealth acquisitions?

This is where I always say the koran was a bad plagiarisation of the Bible. When the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, God caused the Egyptians to give the Israelites gifts of gold, silver, etc, which were later used to make the calf. No wonder the koran is full of contradictions.[/quote]Have you seen a Jew before? He can talk you to give your last Kobo to him, while he has a pile high of Naira! I wonder if the Egyptians who have been berieved will simply and easily give gifts to their slaves who have caused them so much sadness as they lost their first born, as they are leaving this work for nothing position will give gifts of the most expensive thing; Gold and others? American blacks are still waiting for the promised 40 Acres and a Mule, from the USA, and you expect the egyptian victims in their tyranny to give their possessions to the Children of Israel, and yet America is more liberal and cant even fulfill their own promise?

[Quote]

Allah calls the person from the company of the Children of Israel in the wilderness samiri or samiriyu in sentence. Where is the problem? Its a name of a person and thats it, while you make a mountain out of a mere mole!

So what are we to believe now? Yusuf Alli said the name mean watchman.

abulbanaat said the name means somebody from Iraq

olabowale said its the name of a person

Is this not delusion?[/quote]Whats delutional about it? Alhamdulillah, each one of us is describing a single man, and not a tribe! More importantly, he must have left with them from Egypt or joined up with them on the way, but was already an accepted companion at the eent of golden calf. What I saw was Samiri, an identity of a person, a proper name! I am called Babajebu in my family by my inlaws who are not from Ijebu bloodlines. I am called Olabowale because its a name for me. Yet am called others, my muslim name, and Mr. when my family name is used, and father of Lai by my mother, and others as they wish. But it is still me; same here as Samiri is a name of the leader of idol worshipping at the time of exodus of the Israelites.

I could understand Muhsin's fear, well I will take that: I will hands off for now unless they come again, and i will try to remain unperturbed until they go beyond bounds. But they must know that we will not sit cross-legged while they attack Islam with their mouths, never.

Anyway thank you Muhsin, but remember we need not be apologetic, Islam is the ONLY WAY.

He said: “A "coin" is a standard weight of some metal that is stamped with the design,

Answer: For he who can read very well will not fail to quickly grasp the sense of foolhardiness of your source. Well I don’t blame you much, you are a Christian making frantic efforts to remain in Christianity after the truth has come. And those sources of yours have only played on your intelligence, and they have made you believe that you have a belief that can save you in the Sight of your Creator on the Day of Resurrection. You have all failed, you better re-trace your step back to Islam before your ignorance and arrogance land you in everlasting perdition (as I often sound it to the hearing of your ‘son’ or ‘brother’ GODSON).

The claim of your source is that ‘There is some debate over which coin is the world's oldest.’ That is their first failure, so those historians could not conclude when the coin made surfaced into the world. And you said the Egyptian trader who bought Joseph did not use silver-coin (dir’ham) to buy him. Did your sources really read about the Egyptian Civilization? So there was no gold or silver in Egypt during the time of Joseph?

Your problem is that of semantics if you know what Linguistics is. The term ‘money’ is a recent coinage. What will you call the legal tender people of old used in their time? The same thing applies to Dir’haam. It was initially used to mean silver-coin then used generally to refer to money.

And your sources said it was Muhammad that began the usage of the term. What a misinformation. Then we ask them to tell us what that Arabs used to spend before Muhammad, maybe it was cowries!

Important Notice: This was what I prepared after I saw your initial response. I could not reply since yesterday because my connection was down. Alhamdulillah Sir Olabowale has rightly answered you so I need not waste my energy again for a soul not wanting salvation.

Nezan the question again is, bring the contradictions in the Qur’aan not where the Qur’aan contradicts the non-ending historical debates of what came before what.

I like to give you a question that you must solve with your historical facts. Where is the historical proof that there was Noah Flood, and that an ark as big as the one Noah used could carry the whole mankind at that time? And that the knwoldge of the time could make him construct that?

[Muslims believe in the Noah Flood because the Qur’aan says it, we don’t depend on Nezan’s ‘historical facts.’]